Technical Summary
When the establishment of a higher priority Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path requires the preemption of a set of lower priority TE LSPs,
a node has to make a local decision to select which TE LSPs will be
preempted. The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by their respective
Head-end Label Switch Router. This document presents a flexible policy
that can be used to achieve a variety of objectives when LSPs are
preempted. Simulation results are given and a comparison among several
different policies is also included.
Working Group Summary
This is an individual submission via the RFC editor.
Protocol Quality
Ross Callon has reviewed this spec. The document, while an individual
submission, was referred to the CCAMP working group for progression. Using
the terms from section 3 of 3932, historically the reason was:
5. The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.
At this point the document has been updated based on detailed comments by
the CCAMP co-chair, updated, and last called in the CCAMP working group.
Last call comments have been resolved. We believe that the status should
now be:
2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
CCAMP, but this does not prevent publishing.
Note to RFC Editor
We believe that having been successfully updated, and then
reviewed in CCAMP, the document is now ready to be published. Given that
this is still an individual submission, we believe that the proper note to
specify its status would be:
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution
in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See
RFC 3932 for more information.